It’s official: Sony Pictures has pulled the plug on The Interview – across all media platforms, for now.
The chain of events which led to this point may forever be marked by historians as a seminal, watershed moment in this troubling epoch, known simply as, ‘The Age of Stupidity’.
Without a doubt, the most exciting piece of foreign theater involving the US and North Korea since Dennis Rodman and The Fish That Saved Pyongyang…
It couldn’t be any more ridiculous; a twisting and turning, real-life cloak and dagger drama seemingly tailor-made for Hollywood’s ever-expanding child-like adult audience who tends to believe anything which comes from ‘official sources’ or Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.
THE PLOT: A mysterious group of hackers who go by the intriguing name ‘Guardians of Peace’ (not to be confused with ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’)are said to have breached the company’s firewalls and have stolen lots and lots of sensitive emails and data from Sony Pictures Entertainment in Hollywood.
ACTION: On Monday morning Nov. 24th, Sony employees log into their computers only to be greeted by a neon red skeleton on their monitor screens accompanied by the words, “#Hacked by #GOP,” (no, not the Republican Party), followed by lots of threats to release data and post Hollywood secrets online in text-sharing sites like PasteBin, frequented by ‘hactivists’.
Worst of all, the hack attack upset what is by far America’s utmost important group of individuals – actors (including the one in the White House).
CANCELED: Was it down to terrorism, or just bad taste?
The whole affair is said to be very traumatic for Angelina Jolie, and Adam Sandler, and has also exposed a bitter turf war between the agents of both Charlize Theron and Scarlett Johansson. So studio execs are panicking, actors are traumatized, narcissistic sensibilities have been rattled, and publicists are really stressed-out too.
To make matters worse, these unknown, nameless and faceless hackers also oppose the release of Sony’s new political ‘comedy’ (we’ll use that term loosely), entitled, The Interview, which lovingly portrays the violent assassination of North Korea’s Dear leader Kim Jong Un.
We’re then told that “the hackers” are threatening (maybe virtual, or maybe real, they didn’t specify) to unleash “Sept. 11-style” attacks against any theaters who dare screen the upcoming movie. How they would pull-off these attacks against thousands of US theaters simultaneously will forever baffle our media’s fraternity of national security experts.
Then, all of the sudden and in unison, the media shouts and screams with of sort a confirmation: “Multiple reports suggest [!] U.S. government officials believe the attack is tied to the North Korean government”, or so says the Washington Post.
In other words, they might just be making it up, and it wouldn’t be the first time either. For all we know, much of this could have emanated from a publicity office somewhere in Los Angeles.
RT News Published time: December 25, 2014 19:07
Edited time: December 25, 2014 21:16
Firemen work as smoke billows from the windows of a mosque in Eskilstuna December 25, 2014 (Reuters / Pontus Stenberg)
An arsonist has set a mosque ablaze in the southeastern Swedish town of Eskilstuna. The Christmas Day attack comes amidst heightened anti-immigration sentiment in the country.
Up to 20 people, including children, were in the mosque at the time of the attack, which occurred in a residential area of the medium-sized town on Thursday.
Suspect had multiple aliases, granted political asylum by Australian government, interviewed by Australian media, spent years as fake pro-Western “Shia’a cleric” condemning Iran and Syria before recently “converting” to Sunni and supporting ISIS.
Another embarrassing chapter has unfolded for Western intelligence and security communities in the wake of the so-called “Sydney Siege.” The suspect named by the media as “Man Haron Monis” also has gone by the names “Manteghi Boroujerdi” and “Mohammad Hassan Manteghi” and was an individual now confirmed to have long been on the radar of the Australian government, media, law enforcement, and court system since his arrival on Australian shores almost two decades ago.
Image: Anti-Western ISIS Wahabi terrorist, pro-Western “liberal” Shia’a cleric, and secular common man. As with any long-time actor, the “Sydney Siege” suspect has been cast for many diverse roles, with many different names, and an extensive wardrobe. He had played both the hero and the villain. It is beyond bizarre that he has remained in the spotlight across Australia’s political stage for nearly two-decades with a growing criminal record, increasingly disturbing and disruptive behavior, and yet somehow “eluded” Australia’s indiscriminate and all-invasive surveillance network and multiple terror sweeps made just in the past several months. It appears that this “shape-shifting sheik” played a central role in manipulating the Australian public at integral junctures of the West’s “War on Terror.”
Claiming he was a “lone wolf” attacker whose violence and extremism could not have been foreseen is betrayed by an extensive criminal record including murder, preceded by the suspicious circumstances that brought him to Australia to begin with.
Two-Decades in the Spotlight
He fled Iran in 1996 for unknown reasons, claiming in a 2001 Australian ABC interview that he was formerly of Iran’s “Ministry of Intelligence and Security.” He claimed in the same interview to have been in contact with the UN about “secret information” he had regarding the Iranian government.
“Once upon a time, these acts or threats of terror were just simply the rules of war. Canada’s bombings aren’t humanitarian missions and ISIS retaliation shouldn’t be considered terrorism.” Dan Dicks of Press For Truth digs deep into the message being delivered in the John Maguire ISIS video.
Maguire, a Canadian born and raised in Ottawa who now goes by the name Abu Anwar al-Canadi says “You have absolutely no right to live in a state of safety and security when your country is carrying out atrocities on our people.”
Additional research: Caleb McMillan
Some people would call it simply an effort to please the audience. Well, pleasing the audience during a national news broadcast isn’t the objective, unless ratings and viewer numbers and ad revenues and distraction from facts is actually the plan…and of course it is.
Just now, I forced myself to watch a rebroadcast of Wednesday night’s NBC News with the golden boy, Brian Williams.
But Brian wasn’t golden, he was blue, which happens to be people’s favorite color in multiple surveys. Restful calming blue.
Here is what I saw in the first five minutes. I couldn’t handle more. (I urge you to go to NBC and look for yourself.)
Brian was wearing a blue suit. All the backgrounds for captions were blue. Small screens behind Brian were blue. Brian’s desk panels were blue. The surface of the desk reflected vague blue tints.
The lead story, the CIA torture report, featured blue in the CIA seal. Andrea Mitchell, who was covering the report’s release, was wearing a dark blue outfit. Behind her, the Capitol dome sat in a blue sky. A psychologist named Mitchell, an architect of the torture program, was interviewed. His shirt was partly blue. He was wearing blue jeans. The NBC reporter interviewing him was wearing a light blue shirt. A map of the world appeared onscreen, sitting in a field of blue. Behind Andrea, the background was filled with objects of different blues. Reporter Dana Priest was interviewed for the story. A piece of the background behind her was blue. Michael Hayden was interviewed. He was wearing a blue suit.
I watched the beginning of the next story: the NFL’s new policy on player discipline. Commissioner Roger Goodell stood in front of a blue background. He was wearing a blue suit.
Again, I emphasize—all this was in the first five minutes of the newscast.
You could say the news itself was merely an occasion for the transmission of blue.
“Let’s have dinner in front of the TV and watch the news. I like the blue.”
“Which channel?”
“NBC. Their blue is better than the CBS blue.”
“You’re right. It makes me feel restful. The CIA torture couldn’t have been that bad. It’s blue. I’m reassured.”
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
A new Senate report on the CIA’s extensive use of torture to extract information from Muslim patsies in Guantanamo Bay and sundry other agency ‘black sites’ reveals Washington’s sheer sadism.
Russia Today’s summary of the damning Senate investigation highlights the CIA’s systemic use of torturous brutality on prisoners held in agency-run jails across the globe.
The Senate’s report acknowledges that the CIA caused an Afghan man, Gul Rahman, to essentially freeze to death in a prison cell at one of their torture centers north of Kabul. RT writes that, “Sometime that November [in 2001], a low-level CIA officer at COBALT ordered that Rahman be stripped naked, except for a sweatshirt, and ‘shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor,’ according to the Senate committee.”
A particularly cringe-worthy revelation is that the CIA practiced “rectal feeding” where prisoners on hunger strikes were force-fed through their rectum in order to keep them alive. The RT commentary cited above writes that, “At least five CIA detainees were subjected to ‘rectal rehydration,’ or rectal feeding, the Senate report reads, in order to keep prisoners alive who allegedly otherwise refused to eat.”
The CIA also played upon prisoners’ fears to induce them to talk. According to the Senate report, a Saudi man named Abu Zubaydah who had severe entomophobia was put into a confinement box, which was then filled with insects. “In order to try and break them down during interrogations,” the RT summary further explained, CIA officers would threaten to harm prisoners’ family members, often telling them rape and death is what awaited their loved ones if they didn’t start talking. Sleep deprivation was a common tactic as well as prolonged standing, water boarding, ice water baths, suspending prisoners from the wall or ceiling by their limbs, and other inhumane methods.
Despite repeated and incessant violations, CIA officers who participated in the torture program were never reprimanded or punished by the agency, revealing that agency higher-ups were not only negligent but also complicit on every level. “There was no accountability,” the Senate report conceded.
In a display of demented hubris, former President George W. Bush defended the CIA torturers outed in the report, describing them as “patriots.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose unbridled malevolence rivals that of Josef Stalin, damned the new report as “full of crap” and said that the CIA’s torture program was “perfectly justified.” “I’d do it again in a minute,” he told CNN.
Land Destroyer December 16, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) Taliban militants stormed an army public school in the northern city of Peshawar, killing over 100, including many young students. It is believed up to 10 militants took part in the attack, dressed as soldiers to first infiltrate the school’s grounds before beginning the attack. While the details of the attack are forthcoming, the background of the Taliban and the persistent threat it represents is well established, though often spun across the Western media. Who Put the Taliban into Power? Who is Funding them Now? In the 1980’s the United States, Saudi Arabia, and elements within the then Pakistani government funneled millions of dollars, weapons, equipment, and even foreign fighters into Afghanistan in a bid to oust Soviet occupiers. Representatives of this armed proxy front would even visit the White House, meeting President Ronald Reagan personally. The “Mujaheddin” would successfully expel the Soviet Union and among the many armed groups propped up by the West and its allies, the Taliban would establish primacy over Kabul. While Western media would have the general public believe the US rejected the Taliban, never intending them to come to power, it should be noted that the Afghans who visited Reagan in the 1980’s would not be the last to visit the US and cut deals with powerful American corporate-financier interests.
PN 
